Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down

Author Topic: JPEG or RAW?  (Read 10330 times)

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #100 on: February 09, 2019, 04:11:29 pm »

This thread reminds me of Twitter: some folks are here for potentially interesting & useful discussion and/or info while others are here to get lit (or off) on outrage. Give the latter an opportunity to try a more positive tack…and they simply won't::)

-Dave-
Logged

albytastic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #101 on: February 09, 2019, 06:15:37 pm »

I guess I am not clear though on what you find better than before from looking at the images. What’s a good before and after image?

Sharpening and noise handling are available elsewhere, of course, and presumably if you are shooting jpeg, you’ve got your camera set to optimal jpeg output for the situation and include some level of sharpening, for example. When I tried this application on a couple of images that were challenging (shadow detail needed bringing out) I found it was over sharpened and the colors were off. If I had to answer the question of “does the application produce a better way to edit a jpeg than other ways” my answer would be “no” for my use cases. It doesn’t obviously produce raw or really, even a “raw-like experience”. Raw shouldn’t be part of its name but I think we all agree to that. It does produce a sharper seeming image if your images aren’t sharp, though it has to be dialed down in my case. I find it’s color treatment off, perhaps pilot error on my part though. It quite obviously isn’t going to be able to add details in shadows that I could pull using a standard raw processing approach. I obviously won’t be rushing out to buy it since it adds no real value to my workflow. I respect that others find value.

I will try and post image results later this weekend.

Well if you looked at the several examples provided it reduced noise by an incredible amount, and also recovered detail and sharpened where appropriate.
As far as I'm concerned the NR properties alone make it worth the money I paid because it is so much easier than any other NR programs I've tried.
Logged

albytastic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #102 on: February 09, 2019, 06:23:15 pm »

He condemns nothing and simply provides facts you refuse to accept. Like your inability to accept DNG may not equal raw! That seems ridiculous to many Here.

Well why don't you try and find out for yourself if it improves the original JPEG.

Take a JPEG of a increased color gamut scene in JPEG.

Then, without doing anything else to that JPEG put it through J2R and check the results with your programs and compare it to the original JPEGs.

See if it does in fact increase the colour gamut.

I for one would be very interested in the results as I'm sure everyone here would.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #103 on: February 09, 2019, 06:30:23 pm »

Well why don't you try and find out for yourself if it improves the original JPEG.
You don't listen or read very well. I don't have original JPEGs. I told you this at least two times. Like I told you twice that converting something to DNG doesn't necessarily make it raw. You still haven’t accepted these absolute facts.
The JPEGs I produce are from raw and need no further editing.
No, it can't increase color gamut. It can provide a larger color space container then you might futz around further attempting to polish a turd by increasing saturation. But I'm not ready to even attempt to explain those facts to you as you've been utterly unable to understand a much simpler concept about converting data into DNG yet.
Quote
I for one would be very interested in the results as I'm sure everyone here would.
Rather difficult to accept or believe since you refuse to accept simple facts such as what happens when you convert a JPEG into a DNG. Ain't raw data bud. Understand that yet?  :P
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Ray Harrison

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #104 on: February 09, 2019, 07:30:57 pm »

Well if you looked at the several examples provided it reduced noise by an incredible amount, and also recovered detail and sharpened where appropriate.
As far as I'm concerned the NR properties alone make it worth the money I paid because it is so much easier than any other NR programs I've tried.

OK. So your work flow is to shoot JPEG (without, apparently, using camera sharpening, white balance, noise reduction, etc) and then run it through this program to create your TIFF file and then spit it back out as a JPEG? Is this what you do normally or is this stuff you're doing on old files?

I'm seeing lots of sharpening for sure in your example images. Is the level of sharpening you get out of the application acceptable to you? Do you dial it back at all?

Logged

fdisilvestro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1852
    • Frank Disilvestro
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #105 on: February 09, 2019, 08:02:01 pm »

... what happens when you convert a JPEG into a DNG. Ain't raw data bud. ...

The approach of A.I. is not to convert (as you would do in LR), but to re-create data which is consistent with the output. Paraphrasing what Bart said a few posts ago, it is not trying to unscramble the egg, but having a taste of it and trying to recreate the recipe that would lead to the final plate (which a good chef would easily do, applying his knowledge and intelligence).

In an hypothetical scenario of having infinite computer power and infinite raw image and final jpeg samples under all imaginable cases, it would theoretically be possible to re-create (not convert) a "True raw" from  a jpeg file using A.I.

We are very far from there, but let's for a moment consider that this is a newborn baby that has to grow and learn, so let's not kill him yet.

What I think is the problem is that Topaz marketing went crazy and oversold the product and its capabilities. Maybe they thought that it was necessary to sell the product, but the risk is that it could backfire and die prematurely. For instance, this is a quote from the Topaz web site:

Quote
JPEG to RAW’s machine learning models expand the sRGB colorspace to ProPhoto RGB, which is even better than a regular RAW file!

This is nonsense taken to a whole new level, at least that's what I think. Why do that? Unless the target of this product is not the knowledgeable crowd

Now, back to the tests, In my previous posts I showed that a Jpeg to Raw DNG is not even close to a Raw file with extreme underexposure, here is the result of trying to edit the underexposed jpeg compared to the A.I. generated DNG (in my opinion one is bad, the other is worse)

Trying to get shadow detail with the DNG generated from JPEG to RAW:



This with the original out of camera JPEG:






Another test, where the product shows improvement is in reducing JPEG artifacts: This is a coparison of an original rendered NEF, a low quality (full size) JPEG and a DNG generated from the JPEG. The DNG shows a big reduction of jpeg artifacts, reduced banding in the sky, at the expense of creation of artificial detail as can be seen in the church windows.

-- Edit: The following are 100% crops --

Original image from NEF:




JPEG full size, but low quality factor, (I'm not sure if the banding in the sky can be appreciated)




Finally, the DNG out of Jpeg to Raw:



IMHO this DNG is better than the JPEG but not better than the original.

I have made other tests with extremely off white balances, and no, you cannot get a DNG which can compare with the original raw. Some colors will be off, not matter what you do.

My conclusion: it is not a raw file, the application it is capable of creating a tiff file with better quality than the jpeg in some cases. Topaz is creating expectations that cannot be met, at least for now.

albytastic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #106 on: February 09, 2019, 08:16:44 pm »

OK. So your work flow is to shoot JPEG (without, apparently, using camera sharpening, white balance, noise reduction, etc) and then run it through this program to create your TIFF file and then spit it back out as a JPEG? Is this what you do normally or is this stuff you're doing on old files?

I'm seeing lots of sharpening for sure in your example images. Is the level of sharpening you get out of the application acceptable to you? Do you dial it back at all?

These are all old files, and the sharpening was me, normally the sharpening is less than that.

My normal monitor went kaput so I had to rely on an old one or my TV set.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #107 on: February 09, 2019, 08:21:32 pm »

The approach of A.I. is not to convert (as you would do in LR), but to re-create data which is consistent with the output. Paraphrasing what Bart said a few posts ago, it is not trying to unscramble the egg, but having a taste of it and trying to recreate the recipe that would lead to the final plate (which a good chef would easily do, applying his knowledge and intelligence). =
I understand that's what they (Topaz) want to express. I understand what they say they are doing that's not true (Convert JPEG to Raw).


My comments were directed at the utter misunderstandings of the OP of this thread and the original where he stated, incorrectly, that conversion to DNG produces a raw. With or without A.I. that's simply just wrong. He posted in both locations this severe misunderstanding:

But they do create RAW file - DNG


"DNG is also considered to be a RAW image file. It is Adobe’s proprietary image standard that was created to store image data in a generic, highly-compatible format, unlike RAW files that have specific formats based on manufacturer and camera type. Although DNG was invented by Adobe and is supported in all Adobe applications, there are other camera manufacturers such as Leica, Hasselblad and Pentax that adopted this standard and use it in their cameras as their native and supported RAW file format."


So 3 major manufacturers actually use DNG as their RAW files.


https://expertphotography.com/dng-file-vs-raw-file/


sorry FOUR.
The "they' above is Topaz. He believes they convert JPEG to raw because a DNG is involved. He continues to apparently believe that DNG equals raw. At least he's yet to admit that's not always the case, that a conversion of JPEG to DNG, everywhere, doesn't produce raw data. Or that any conversion to DNG equals raw data as he's expressed in two threads. It is simply not always true. No wonder he accepts what Topaz claims about this product. As it's simply not true when Topaz converts a JPEG into a DNG. That A.I. may be used to improve further processing (seems sharpening is a big part of this process), it's not got a lick to do with raw data or processing raw data, DNG or otherwise. As we both agree. As do others. I'm not sure he understands that yet. As such, when he asks me "Well why don't you try and find out for yourself if it improves the original JPEG" despite having told him twice there's absolutely no reason for me to do so, or he states "for one would be very interested in the results as I'm sure everyone here would", it's simply disingenuous dialog based on his inability to yet accept what happens when data is converted to DNG. So I suggest he decide first, what really happens with differing conversions of data to DNG occurs before going any farther.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #108 on: February 09, 2019, 08:22:53 pm »

These are all old files, and the sharpening was me, normally the sharpening is less than that.

My normal monitor went kaput so I had to rely on an old one or my TV set.
That explains the over sharpening which is rather ugly. At least on my NEC P271Q SpectraView color reference display system.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

albytastic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #109 on: February 09, 2019, 08:27:10 pm »

You don't listen or read very well. I don't have original JPEGs. I told you this at least two times. Like I told you twice that converting something to DNG doesn't necessarily make it raw. You still haven’t accepted these absolute facts.
The JPEGs I produce are from raw and need no further editing.
No, it can't increase color gamut. It can provide a larger color space container then you might futz around further attempting to polish a turd by increasing saturation. But I'm not ready to even attempt to explain those facts to you as you've been utterly unable to understand a much simpler concept about converting data into DNG yet. Rather difficult to accept or believe since you refuse to accept simple facts such as what happens when you convert a JPEG into a DNG. Ain't raw data bud. Understand that yet?  :P

You may not have original JPEGs, but you have a camera capable of taking JPEGs surely?

I do understand about DNG, a similar thing happens when you put a 14 bit output from your camera into the 16 bit space of a TIFF or DNG file.

Or the 8 bit output of a JPEG into a 16 bit space.

What I wanted to know was there any difference in the final output from J2R compared to the original JPEG, in the colour gamut - which you claim can't be done.

I already know that J2R really does work in recovering details and in noise reduction, so whether or not it does that also is really just an interest, nothing more.

But if you're not willing to do it, ok no real problem.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #110 on: February 09, 2019, 08:34:05 pm »

You may not have original JPEGs, but you have a camera capable of taking JPEGs surely?
Of course it does. And I can go out of my way to under expose anything, set the incorrect white balance and produce out of focus images. But I'm a professional photographer (at least I was, that's what I was paid to do, to feed my family). There's absolutely NO reason to shoot JPEGs when I can and do shoot raw. To futz with a product based on a lie.


Quote
I do understand about DNG, a similar thing happens when you put a 14 bit output from your camera into the 16 bit space of a TIFF or DNG file.

Or the 8 bit output of a JPEG into a 16 bit space

No, you don't understand about DNG, or bit depth. Or color gamut based on your writings. Or how to process images ideally by over sharpening them by doing so on a TV and then presenting them as being improvements.
You don't understand that very, very, very few devices actually capture 16-bit data. Or that few products actually edit 16-bit data (Photoshop for one doesn't). You probably believe that a 16-bit document is 'better' than a 12-bit document because it has 'more colors' (nope) or simply because it's a bigger value. Or that more bits means more DR.
You're not willing to listen to facts. It's why a few here are not taking you very seriously.
You still believe a DNG is always raw, no matter the source data prior to conversion? Yes or no? IF no, you're learning. That's at least some progress.  ???
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

albytastic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #111 on: February 09, 2019, 09:08:23 pm »

Of course it does. And I can go out of my way to under expose anything, set the incorrect white balance and produce out of focus images. But I'm a professional photographer (at least I was, that's what I was paid to do, to feed my family). There's absolutely NO reason to shoot JPEGs when I can and do shoot raw. To futz with a product based on a lie.


No, you don't understand about DNG, or bit depth. Or color gamut based on your writings. Or how to process images ideally by over sharpening them by doing so on a TV and then presenting them as being improvements.
You don't understand that very, very, very few devices actually capture 16-bit data. Or that few products actually edit 16-bit data (Photoshop for one doesn't). You probably believe that a 16-bit document is 'better' than a 12-bit document because it has 'more colors' (nope) or simply because it's a bigger value. Or that more bits means more DR.
You're not willing to listen to facts. It's why a few here are not taking you very seriously.
You still believe a DNG is always raw, no matter the source data prior to conversion? Yes or no? IF no, you're learning. That's at least some progress.  ???

Of course I understand about 16 bit data capture which is what I meant when I said about 8 bit and 12 bit.

And I don't believe that DNG is always raw, bit if camera manufacturers are using DNG as raw then DNG can be raw.

And I do understand about DR and bits, certainly not what you ascribed to me.

And despite what you may think I understand very well about bits, A/D conversion and what it achieves in the camera, and a great deal more.

I also understand about politeness.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #112 on: February 09, 2019, 09:25:17 pm »

Of course I understand about 16 bit data capture which is what I meant when I said about 8 bit and 12 bit.

And I don't believe that DNG is always raw, bit if camera manufacturers are using DNG as raw then DNG can be raw.

And I do understand about DR and bits, certainly not what you ascribed to me.

And despite what you may think I understand very well about bits, A/D conversion and what it achieves in the camera, and a great deal more.

I also understand about politeness.
1. If it's raw, it's raw, not maybe.
2. Bit depth isn't related to DR. More bits doesn't mean more DR.
You think a "16-bit" Prophoto image of a gray card has more colors than an sRGB 8-bit of a sunset?
You think humans can see 16.7 million colors let alone 65 million colors?
You think numbers are colors?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

azmike

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
    • http://
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #113 on: February 09, 2019, 10:52:14 pm »

This discussion and the associated "Topaz Edit JPG to Raw" are just sad. Andrew Rodney is just full stop correct -you can't remake the raw from the jpg.  The raw data file is a 2-dimensional file of the voltages values from the sensor array.  Nothing more. It ain't a photo yet.  A jpg development of that file goes through numerous non-deterministic and destructive steps.  Topaz should have said they have a software that makes jpg's better, even "AI" better, but to suggest that it recreates the raw is not truthful.  AI will not trump optics, physics and thermodynamics (and a few more fundamentals).  The numerous discussion participants that are posting:  "yeah, but look at my comparison shots"  are living in a world enamored of smart-phone magic where computational wizardry (and marketing) obfuscate the basics of photography. 

I have been a forum member for over a decade; met Andrew at a printing seminar in Chandler; Rodney and others (MR, JS)  have been pioneers in explaining the transition from film to digital.  Style aside, they know their stuff.  Try to learn from them before their patience gives out.

Mike Coffey
Prescott, AZ
Logged

albytastic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #114 on: February 10, 2019, 03:05:35 am »

1. If it's raw, it's raw, not maybe.
2. Bit depth isn't related to DR. More bits doesn't mean more DR.
You think a "16-bit" Prophoto image of a gray card has more colors than an sRGB 8-bit of a sunset?
You think humans can see 16.7 million colors let alone 65 million colors?
You think numbers are colors?

And that is your idea of a discussion?

It's quite obvious to me that despite anything I say you hate the idea of J2R so any further discussion with your arrogance and condescension is a waste of my time.

Another contributor on her has shown that J2R reduces banding, reduces JPEG artefacts - Bart has shown, and so have I, that J2R recovers lost data, and reduces noise to an incredible degree.

All of which you, and others, prefer to ignore just because of the term "RAW"

I will simply go on posting more images on my site and investigate the capabilities of this program further.

A great pity you have such a closed mind.

Have a nice day.

But as far as I'm concerned, further discussion on this matter is useless.

Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #115 on: February 10, 2019, 04:28:19 am »

And that is your idea of a discussion?

But as far as I'm concerned, further discussion on this matter is useless.
That's my idea of facts.
Your question here "JPEG or RAWS?"
My answer: raw.
Useless?
“If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions.”
― Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Garnick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #116 on: February 10, 2019, 08:56:22 am »

albytastic,

"But as far as I'm concerned, further discussion on this matter is useless."  I tend to agree when trying to look at this thread from your point of view.  It's really quite obvious that you are losing this one, so why bother continuing any further?  For the most part, right or wrong, you have been out numbered by a rather large margin.  In your 49th post you suggest that you've been a member of LuLa for a decade, and yet your participation seems to belie that statement.  However, simply lurking is also a way of gathering very useful information.  Hopefully you will join in here on other topics as well. 

I do have one rather important question before I leave.  It goes something like this -- In your opinion, what is Andrew Rodney's main opposition to the concept of converting a "JPEG to RAW"?  A simple question, but one I would like for you to answer, should you chose to do so.  And of course that question would apply to not only Andrew, but also to others who view this thread in the same light.

Gary       

Logged
Gary N.
"My memory isn't what it used to be. As a matter of fact it never was." (gan)

Ray Harrison

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 151
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #117 on: February 10, 2019, 09:34:15 am »

Another contributor on her has shown that J2R reduces banding, reduces JPEG artefacts - Bart has shown, and so have I, that J2R recovers lost data, and reduces noise to an incredible degree.

All of which you, and others, prefer to ignore just because of the term "RAW"

Albytastic - language is important and raw (and even "RAW"  :) ) has meaning. Claims on the website and marketing mean something. It is, in fact (as you have seen), difficult for me and others to get past that meaning to even figure out what this product really is since it is hidden behind misleading language. It clearly does not live up to its name, nor to the marketing claims. It may use AI but it is simply a tool to enhance jpegs in certain circumstances.

As enthusiastic as you may be for what it does to your images, my own conclusion from what I have seen from you, Bart, Frank, others and my own admittedly limited testing is that it has a fairly narrow scope: It seems to (overly) sharpen details in the jpeg, tries to do AI-based cloning of certain detail areas and stuffs more bits into the channels to write out the tiff/dng. I have not seen it "recover data" nor would I use adjective "incredible"  in its ability to handle noise well. In its conversion from sRGB to ProPhotoRGB (I believe they claim to make AI-based guesses as to the original colors and what they'd be in the new space), I've only seen poor results in difficult images.

I agree that people may obtain what for them are pleasing results on some of their images. There may be use cases that is is helpful in, for example from scans, perhaps old low-quality jpegs from a variety of sources, as Bart has pointed out. Over time, as they improve their models and train on more data, they may be able to do more jpeg image enhancement.

In general I have liked Topaz for certain things, I have nothing against AI in the right hands and there is a lot of scope for it in the image space and is indeed fairly pervasive and not just related to them. But they completely missed an opportunity to position the tool for what it really seems to be: JPEG image enhancing (AI or otherwise). Yes, "RAW" bothers me.
Logged

Garnick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #118 on: February 10, 2019, 10:46:19 am »

"Yes, "RAW" bothers me."

Thank you Ray.  It seems to bother the majority of those participating in this thread, including myself.  But let me explain further why I posed my question to "Albytastic".  I have once again scanned all of Andrews posts, and unless I missed something, he has never denied the possibility that this most recent offering from Topaz can perhaps in some way(s) help to enhance the apparent visual quality of a JPEG file.  From my vantage point Andrew's one and only objection to J2R is the "R" reference and what he sees as misleading and in general a totally false advertising campaign on Topaz' part.  And he seems to have a lot of support from the rest of the community, including me obviously.  I am far from being a techie and I'm the first to admit that some of the information Andrew and others have put forth can at times zoom over my head and cease to enter my knowledge bank, much to my chagrin.  However, that's what this forum is all about and it does indeed offer a bank of information for those who seek it.  We are all richer when we share our thoughts and on occasion our knowledge, no matter the degree.

Gary     
Logged
Gary N.
"My memory isn't what it used to be. As a matter of fact it never was." (gan)

Peter_DL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 544
Re: JPEG or RAW?
« Reply #119 on: February 10, 2019, 01:55:47 pm »

"Yes, "RAW" bothers me."

Thank you Ray.  It seems to bother the majority of those participating in this thread, including myself.

-1.

A Raw file (a) can be processed to b) a high quality 16 bit image, be it in Tiff or DNG format, with rich shadow details, a smooth gradient in the sky, etc. Or, the Raw data (a) can be processed to c) a low-quality Jpeg. The Topaz software tries to transform c) to b), supported by an A.I. which is trained on the correspondence by a large number of images and pairs of c) and b).

The gist is sufficiently clear, and I find it a subordinate point that Topaz mixes up a) and b) in their descriptions.

Peter
--
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up